Delaware 2023-2024 Regular Session

Delaware House Bill HB383

Introduced
6/6/24  
Engrossed
6/13/24  
Introduced
6/6/24  
Engrossed
6/13/24  
Enrolled
6/30/24  
Refer
6/13/24  
Enrolled
6/30/24  
Enrolled
6/30/24  

Caption

An Act To Amend Titles 18 And 24 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Prohibiting Discrimination Against 340b Drugs And Covered Entities By Manufacturers And Pharmacy Benefits Managers.

Impact

If enacted, HB383 will impact regulatory frameworks concerning how pharmacy benefits managers operate in Delaware. The legislation specifically targets practices that would allow these managers to discriminate against covered entities by providing subpar reimbursement rates for 340B drugs or imposing unfair audit requirements. The intention is to level the playing field for entities involved in the 340B program, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the program and protecting the interests of the patients it serves.

Summary

House Bill 383 aims to amend Titles 18 and 24 of the Delaware Code to prohibit discrimination against 340B entities by pharmacy benefits managers and manufacturers. Specifically, the bill seeks to ensure that covered entities—which participate in the federal 340B drug pricing program—are not unfairly treated in terms of reimbursement rates and auditing practices. By enforcing restrictions on how pharmacy benefits managers can interact with these entities, the bill anticipates better access to affordable drugs for vulnerable populations served by 340B entities, including health centers and certain hospitals.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding HB383 appears supportive, particularly among advocates for healthcare reform and organizations representing 340B covered entities. Advocates argue that the bill addresses significant issues of equity in healthcare access and affordability. However, some stakeholders, including certain pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, may view the bill as overly restrictive or burdensome, leading to feelings of contention in industry circles. The polarized views reflect broader debates in the healthcare sector over drug pricing and access.

Contention

Notable points of contention include concerns from pharmacy benefits managers regarding the proportionality of the restrictions imposed by HB383. Critics may argue that the bill could limit their flexibility in managing drug formularies and polices that have traditionally allowed for cost control measures. Additionally, there is ongoing debate regarding the balance of power between state regulations and federal standards, as the bill includes provisions that align state law with federal law to avoid conflicts, raising questions about regulatory complexities.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

TX HB4596

Relating to certain contracts between pharmacy benefit managers and the Employees Retirement System of Texas, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, The Texas A&M University System, or The University of Texas System.

NJ S3842

"Patient and Provider Protection Act."

NJ A4953

"Patient and Provider Protection Act."

TX SB1416

Relating to certain contracts between pharmacy benefit managers and the Employees Retirement System of Texas, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, The Texas A&M University System, or The University of Texas System.

AR SB593

To Amend The Arkansas Pharmacy Benefits Manager Licensure Act; And To Create The Pharmacy Services Administrative Organization Act.

LA HB432

Provides for the regulation of pharmacy services administrative organizations (OR +$88,000 SG EX See Note)

LA HB387

Provides for the regulation of pharmacy services administrative organizations

MA S704

Prohibiting discrimination against 340b drug discount program participants